The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2022: Murder on the Orient Express (1974), directed by Sidney Lumet

 

The Trailer

and

The Appropriate Tune: 'Train Kept A Rollin'' by Aerosmith

       If Mary Shelley could be said to be a pioneer of genre fiction, then Agatha Christie is certainly an innovator. By the time Christie entered the game the core premise of mystery fiction and the detective novel had already been established by writers like Edgar Allan Poe and Arthur Conan Doyle, but Christie was able to take that formula and put her own spin on it, to great success. Well, ‘great’ success is an understatement-- She’s one of the most popular novelists in the entirety of the English language with adaptations of her work being made to this day, the most recent being the overproduced but otherwise decent retellings by Kenneth Branagh. And because she’s been dead for years, she has no way to have controversial opinions on twitter that will piss off her fanbase. That’s true power right there.

       So plenty of Christie adaptations to choose from, and while it would make sense to do a modern take on it like the Branagh films, there’s just not that much room on this blog for movies that weren’t made in the 70s or the 90s. Luckily there happens to have been a pretty famous adaptation of one of Agatha Christie’s most famous novels made right smack dab in the middle of the 1970s, so that’s the one we’re going to be covering today. What are the odds, am I right?

       Released in 1974, Murder on the Orient Express was written by Paul Dehn, directed by Sidney Lumet and produced by John Brabourne and Richard Goodwin through G.W. Films Limited, based on the novel of the same name by Agatha Christie. The year is 1935, and a colorful cast of characters have gathered in Istanbul in order to take a ride on the Orient Express, that most famous of transcontinental railways. There are American businessmen, Russian aristocrats, Hungarian ambassadors, and most importantly to our story, a Belgian private detective by the name of Hercule Poirot (Albert Finney). Things progress in the way things must do when traveling in a cramped series of hallways with a bunch of bougie snobs, until one day one of the passengers, a Mr. Ratchett is found dead in his room, stabbed 12 times in the chest. With the fear of scandal in his mind and the train temporarily stalled by a snow drift,  the train’s director, Bianchi (Martin Balsam), begs Poirot to crack the case, which he accepts. His first major discovery: Ratchett’s name wasn’t actually Ratchett, it was Cosetti -- the same Cosetti behind the kidnapping and murder of a little girl named Daisy Armstrong 5 years prior. As good a motive for murder as any, but untangling the mystery of whose motive it was will prove to be a true test of Poirot’s deductive powers. Who is responsible for the murder on the Orient Express?

       The 1970s were famous for heroin, disco music, and ensemble cast films. In the case of the latter this was most often expressed in disaster films like Airport 77 and Backdraft, but period pieces like Murder on the Orient Express here weren’t immune to its sweet allure. We have Albert Finney and Martin Balsam as I wrote, as well as Anthony Perkins, Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Vanessa Redgrave, Sean Connery, ol’ D'Artagnan himself Michael York, and a few others you might recognize. Occasionally this conflux of stars can end up coming together like oil and water and debilitating the film, but I never felt that with Murder on the Orient Express. Everyone feels ‘at ease’ in a manner of speaking, which I assume is down to everyone getting low impact roles with a decent amount of screentime and character work. Probably a fun shoot, all things considered.

       Speaking of casting, I think it is in the casting of Poirot that sets Lumet’s adaptation of Christie above the modern versions, and I’m talking specifically about Death on the Nile here as that is the one that I’ve watched. Branagh has the mustache and he can do the accent, but his interpretation of the detective is far too tragic, far too heroic for my tastes. Poirot is not meant to be likable, Christie herself said that she hated the character, and I believe that Albert Finney grasps that more so than Branagh. Not that Finney’s Poirot is a total prick or anything, he’s still charismatic enough to carry a film, but the pomposity and the vanity that defined the character comes through. It also helps to add a bit of levity to the film (especially when Finney is paired with Martin Balsam), keeping things from getting too ground down by dour feelings. Which isn’t saying that there aren’t strong emotions here, but it’s a mystery story not sturm und drang.

       To further the comparison, while both films work within the lavish, art deco style that dominated the pre-WWII world, Lumet’s production is simpler and more preferable than Branagh’s attempt. Lumet needs a boat sailing from a port he films it, Lumet needs a visual indicator of the melting pot that is Istanbul he shows it, and of course when in need of a train he has one handy. While I appreciate the technicolor feel of Branagh’s film at times, there’s so much CGI in Death on the Nile that just about every scene that takes place outside looks like it was pulled from a video game. Now of course Sidney Lumet didn’t even have the option to have CGI in his film, and Branagh’s interpretation of Orient Express might be different from his Nile, but the point I’m trying to make is what a director needs to show in order to convey the narrative of the film. Lumet feels restrained even for the time and yet still manages to establish the setting so the audience never has doubts, while Branagh feels overly excessive. Doesn’t really inspire me to go and check out his Orient Express either.

       If there’s one point of contention I have with the film, it’s with the score by Richard Rodney Bennett. Not that it’s bad, I think it perfectly fits the period of the film, but it feels like it has exactly one emotional tone that it keeps throughout the thing. Even at times when you’d want something more dramatic or serious there’s still this bracing score going. I’d hardly call it a serious flaw though, just a little dissonant with the visual content.

       Murder on the Orient Express gets an easy recommendation. No muss, no fuss, just a simple little mystery story to pass the time, expertly filmed and excellently performed. Those readers who are interested in exploring Christie’s body of work cinematically will find this a good stepping stone, and everyone else will find a fun detective story. Give it a shot.

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2022: The Watcher in the Woods (1980), directed by John Hough

 

The Trailer

and

The Appropriate Tune: 'Somebody's Watching Me' by Rockwell

       The 1980’s are often romanticized, chiefly by weirdos, as a time that was great for business, but that wasn’t exactly the case for Disney. In fact most of the decade was sort of a crapshoot for them, exemplified by a string of middling attempts to move the needle at the box office. Tron, The Great Mouse Detective, The Black Cauldron, while some of these films over the years have gained a level of cult notoriety they certainly impress audiences at the time, especially when you had Don Bluth kicking around giving people films that had some metaphorical teeth without sacrificing the animation quality. It wasn’t until the tail end of the decade that The Mouse was able to right the ship, first with Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and then a year later with The Little Mermaid,  but it’s strange to consider a world where Disney is most associated with failures and missteps than with anything good. Well actually  it’s not, but I’m sure at the time Joe Public were like ‘wowee, good thing these guys don’t own my favorite film franchise and never will.’

       As I said though, several of these films that proved to be a bomb for Disney at the time have in recent years been looked upon with different eyes. Tron, for example, went from the poster child of Disney turds and ended up becoming a full-fledged franchise, albeit a minor one. So in the spirit of bringing things to light that Disney would rather forget I decided to grab a film from the peak of the Dark Ages and see how it plays. Live action too, so you know it’s going to go well.

       Released in 1980, The Watcher in the Woods was written by Brian Clemens, Harry Spalding and Rosemary Anne Sisson, directed by John Hough and Vincent McEveety and produced by Ron Miller through Walt Disney Productions, based on the novel “A Watcher in the Woods” by Florence Engel Randall. Lynn-Holly Johnson stars as Jan Curtis, who along with little sister Ellie (Kyle Richards), mother Helen (Carroll Baker) and father Paul (David McCallum) managed to snag themselves a secluded manor in the English countryside on the cheap from its owner and their neighbor Mrs. Aylwood (Bette Davis). There’s always gotta be a catch though, which Jan begins to experience immediately after entering the house. Strange lights, bizarre hallucinations, Ellie getting possessed, your typical crazy ghost shit. The common thread throughout these incidents however is Karen Aylwood, Mrs. Aylwood’s teenage daughter who disappeared thirty years ago under mysterious circumstances. What happened to Karen, and how does it tie into these supernatural events? The answers to those questions and some prime voyeurism await in The Watcher in the Woods.

       If the phrase ‘Disney made a horror film’ doesn’t fill you with confidence, I can hardly blame you. Disney has built their empire off of a dedication to family-friendly, culturally appropriated content, so attempting something different and interesting is bound to make them stumble. If you were to give them some credit however, it is that they found something that could conceivably fit within their wheelhouse. There are no monsters in The Watcher in the Woods, no psychopathic killers, simply some spooky happenings ala Amityville Horror and a POV tracking shot (reminiscent of Friday the 13th and Evil Dead) that implies some sort of malicious intelligence. Not enough to stir the loins of any serious gorehound out there, in fact the entire film is quite tame on the violence front, but the film does manage an eerie, alien atmosphere that a more direct film might not have kept up with in favor of explosive thrills. You’re not sure what the Watcher in the Woods is, and at the end of the film you’re still not sure, and that sort of faux-Lovecraftian ‘things beyond our mortal understanding’ comes off as fairly unique.

       As far as casting goes, it’s serviceable. It speaks to the state of Disney’s attempts at live action at this point that the film's biggest names, David McCallum, Carroll Baker and Bette Davis would have been good catches two decades before this movie was released, and naturally they’re barely in the thing. The rest of the cast do their job, and that’s about as much as I can say. I’ve definitely seen worse child acting in my day, and it’s a small cast so they likely had an easier time getting the performance the director wanted.

       If you’ve ever seen an episode of Rod Serling’s second show, Night Gallery, The Watcher in the Woods. Entertaining surely, but when comparing it to the stuff that came before there’s an aura of ‘cheapness’ that radiates from the thing. Like they found a mansion in the woods, great but they do 99 percent of the filming during the day so that it is as unscary as possible, and they don’t even bother making the forest seem scary outside of one scene that we never return to again. That, combined with the simplistic effects (hope you think blue flashes of light are scary), the loss of tension through lack of violence, the acting, the music (even thirty plus years ago slowed down children’s music feels cliche), it all combines into something that didn’t need to be a theatrical film, and indeed doesn’t even last the 90 minutes like its peers. Were this made 20 years later it would fit right in with the best of the Disney Channel Original Movies, but as is it sticks out, and not in the good way.

       Based on that description however, I’m going to give The Watcher in the Woods a mild recommendation. Sometimes you want to watch a horror movie but maybe you’ve got a kid in the house, or a partner who’s not good with the genre, or maybe you yourself aren’t the best with it but you want to get into it. That’s where The Watcher in the Woods comes in, as it’s the most mild of mild salsa type horror films that still has enough going for it to make it interesting. Outside of those circumstances however I don’t know if there’s much to entice a moviegoer beyond the novelty of a Disney horror, and the moviegoers of the time would seem to agree with me. There have definitely been worse movies to come out Disney’s mouse hole though, so if you’re interested go for it.

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2022: The Three Musketeers (1973), directed by Richard Lester

The Trailer

 and

The Appropriate Tune: 'Detention' by Muskets

       There have been a lot of French people over the years, so it should come as no surprise that at least a couple of them have contributed to pop culture. Victor Hugo, Gaston Leroux, Jules Verne, the one guy who invented Lupin, Alexandre Dumas, and probably a couple of others. While Dumas may not be .a household name these days, his stories still get around; The Three Musketeers, The Count of Monte Cristo, The Man in the Iron Mask, The Corsican Brothers, in an age where most the population couldn’t read and the novel was the hip new fad Dumas was the Stephen King of his generation, pumping out story after story to great critical and commercial success. He was also known for having sex with dozens of women, so cheers to him I guess. 

        As a recovering literature nerd The Three Musketeers was indeed one of my conquests, right alongside Ivanhoe and Le Morte D’Arthur, but it’s been years and my memories of it have likely been crossed with that one Mickey Mouse movie, so this Marathon will also conveniently double as a refresher course. I also decided to go with the 70’s adaptation because hell, I’ve already got a truckload of 70’s genre movies under my belt, might as well add another to the pile.

       Released in 1973, The Three Musketeers was written by George MacDonald Fraser, produced by Ilya Salkind and directed by Richard Lester, based on the novel of the same name by Alexandre Dumas. Michael York stars as d’Artagnan, a young farm boy who travels to the big city in order to realize his dream of becoming one of France’s legendary Musketeers, like his father before him. He immediately fails at this, robbed and humiliated besides, but manages to make fast friends with three musketeers: leader Athos (Oliver Reed), ebullient Porthos (Frank Finlay) and graceful Aramis (Richard Chamberlain). His closest friend however is the beautiful Constance Bonacieux (Raquel Welch), but that might turn out to be a problem. Not because she’s married or anything like that, although she is, but because she’s close personal friends with the Queen of France, who herself is currently getting hot and heavy with the Duke of Birmingham, PM of England. Scandalous, or at least it will be if the villainous Cardinal Richelieu (Charlton Heston) manages to get his way. d’Artagnan may not be a musketeer but he’s going to be getting some hands-on experience as he and his friends work to thwart the Cardinal and his agents and avert an international incident. ‘All for one and one for all’ is the rallying cry of the musketeer, and these men practice what they preach.

       Any preconceived notions that period pieces are clean, sterile affairs is thrown out the window with Lester’s Three Musketeers. Dumas’ novel is a classic of high adventure, and that’s exactly the kind of energy this film exudes -- a wildness that feels like when you’re just the right level of intoxication at a really fun party. When you get a fight scene in this movie, which is often, they aren’t the highly choreographed tests of skill that we might associate with these kinds of films, they’re more like chaotic brawls. Our heroes will fight with swords, sheets, sticks and fists, they’ll swing on ropes on top of foes and throw dirt in their eyes, and although it doesn’t look all that flashy in terms of fight choreography it makes up for it in its variety (every fight scene feels unique) and in its rough-and-tumble realism (they fight more as you’d expect people in those times actually would). You could probably paint a through-line between this and the action set pieces of films like Pirates of the Caribbean, but Three Musketeers is a lot more ramshackle in its execution, which I think is to its benefit. It really feels like anything could happen in this movie, and that is often the case.

        Lester’s Musketeers is also pretty damn funny, which is not something I expected going into it. Not unintentionally funny like older movies are sometimes judged to be, The Three Musketeers is built with comedy in mind and that comedy lands more often than it misses. You’ve got physical comedy as you might expect but then you’ve got some straight-up skits and running gags, like Constance being a klutz for no reason, in that zany, easy listening way that you only find in 70’s comedies. Screwball though it may be however it doesn’t go so far as to remove any sense of tension as a full-fledged comedy film would. There are stakes, these characters are fighting for their lives and they don’t always get away scot-free, and even if the situations the characters find themselves in can be goofy, the characters take the world as it is without a side eye to the audience. Which was the smart move, as even if Lester and the crew were taking the piss out of Dumas a bit they captured the freewheeling, barrel chested fun at the heart of his story as well, and based on what little I’ve read about Dumas as a person I think he would’ve appreciated the bawdy shine put to his work.

       This is a damn fine cast too, I’ve got to say. Aside from the folks I’ve mentioned you’ve also got Christopher Lee as the Count de Rochefort, Chinatown star Faye Dunaway as Milady de Winter, British comedy legend Spike Milligan as the elderly innkeeper and Constance’s husband Monsieur Bonacieux and Lester regular Roy Kinnear as d’Artagnan’s bumbling servant Planchet. Michael York was definitely the right person for the role of d’Artagnan, he’s got the physicality to pull off the stunts and choreography and his joy de vivre blunt attitude works for the action and comedy portions of the film in equal measure. I was most surprised by Charlton Heston as Richelieu however. Most of the film roles I’d seen him in up until this point had all the subtlety of a brick, but he’s quite subdued here and he pulls off the criminal mastermind role very well. 

       My main point of contention, aside from the fact this film set in France with French characters based on a French novel is packed with actors speaking in English accents, is one of pacing. This film is almost two hours long, and for the most part it manages its time well enough that you don’t notice it, but there was definitely a point around the midway point where I felt ‘god damn, how much of this movie is left again?’.Of course the plot kicks off properly after that, but I think the laissez-faire nature of the film leads to that impression. Anything can happen, but when will that thing be important, that sort of thinking. Also it’s never nice to sequel bait unless you’re serious about it, I’m still waiting for Buckaroo Banzai 2.

       The Three Musketeers gets an easy recommendation. Not since our last Jackie Chan film have I watched an action film that was just plain fun to watch. Not too violent, not too raunchy, not too goofy, Richard Lester strikes the pitch-perfect tone and gets just the right crew to pull it off. Put it on your watch queue if you have one, and if it’s already on there move it to the front of the line, you’ll be in for a great evening. Make sure to invite your friends too, because of the obvious Musketeer ‘all for one and one for all’ parallel. They won’t appreciate your wit but they probably will enjoy the movie.

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2022: Lord of Illusions (1995), directed by Clive Barker

 

The Trailer

and

The Appropriate Tune: 'The Immaculate Conception' by Jedi Mind Tricks

       Once more into the breach with Mr. Clive Barker. You know it’s a bit surprising that netflix or some other streaming service hasn’t called ol’ Clive up and got some adaptations going. There was that remake of Candyman, sure, but I imagine a lot of people don’t even realize it was an adaptation, much less one written by Barker. If Amazon can drop a billion dollars on a Lord of the Rings show that no one asked for, surely we could get some scratch to see more Clive on the silver screen, especially at a time when the FX for TV shows can finally keep up with the material. I’m sure he’d appreciate it too, if only to give him something to do that isn’t Hellraiser.

       Anyway released in 1995, Lord of Illusions was written and directed by Clive Barker and produced by Barker, Joanne Sellar, Steve Golin and Sigurjon Sighvatsson through Seraphim Productions, based on the Clive Barker story “The Last Illusion”. Scott Bakula stars as Harry D’Amour, a private investigator with one foot firmly planted in the supernatural, whether he wants to or not. While in L.A. investigating an insurance  fraud case, Harry stumbles upon a fortune teller being murdered by two men, a weirdo with heterochromia and no eyebrows and a skinhead with pointed teeth who manages to not die even after getting punched out of a second story window. This leads him to Dorothea Swann (Famke Janssen), wife of famous magician Philip Swann, who fears for her husband’s life. It seems that this fortune teller and Swann go way back, 13 years in fact, back when they and a couple others frequented a cult lead by a man named Nix, who was a magician as well. When Nix decided to go from sacrificing animals to people Swann and his merry band killed him, sealed his powers and buried him in a hole, but with people turning up dead one is left to wonder if being dead is all it’s cracked up to be these days. Harry takes the case, but little does he know that when you’re walking this fine path between heaven and hell, you’re bound to spot a couple demons.

       A detective story with a supernatural twist. Not exactly an uncommon combo, in fact we’ve covered several such films in the Marathon over the years (In the Mouth of Madness, Wolfen, The Believers), but it is surprising to see it coming from Clive Barker. This is the man who brought us Hellraiser and Nightbreed after all, even Rawhead Rex had some psychosexual themes under all the crap, that he would put out a spooky film noir when given the director’s chair seems out of character for him. Yes there’s plenty of blood and gore you’ve come to expect from a Barker story, but I mean, the story takes place in Los Angeles, the protagonist is a private investigator, there’s a beautiful yet mysterious woman who is immediately attracted to the P.I., the antagonist with a sidekick, and on and on. You’d think this would be setting up for some kind of subversion of those tropes as in Mouth of Madness, but no it’s played completely straight. Aside from the supernatural elements and the gore you could play this alongside any Hammett or Chandler adaptation. So I would have called it the safe move from Barker, but really how many people were trying the pulp noir throwback at this point in time? Besides Warren Beatty, and we know how that turned out.

        Of course it wouldn’t be a Clive Barker movie without the gorey special effects, and while Lord of Illusions is comparably tamer than Hellraiser or Candyman it still manages to scratch that itch, particularly during the climax. I especially like the moments where characters see with ‘true sight’, I'm not sure whether that was accomplished by camera tricks on a practical effect or if it was done through CGI, but it looks very bizarre in a good way. I assume it’s CG because there’s another scene where that uses it, and this would be around the time that practical effects and CGI would be at equilibrium. Obviously the practical stuff looks better on screen, but Barer manages to use it in a visually interesting way, and in any case I’ve gained a fondness for old janky CG.

       The decision to cast Scott Bakula as the lead was…questionable. Now I like Bakula well enough -- Quantum Leap is a fun show and I didn’t even hate him all that much in Star Trek: Enterprise, despite his character being the writing equivalent of a paper cut on your scrotum, but both of those roles play to his strengths; characters that are morally upright if kind of dorky guys. Seeming him trying to pull off a Sam Spade or Philip Marlowe type character, I just can’t take him seriously, and that’s entirely down to my perception rather than his performance. Conversely I think David von Bargen was perfect casting as Nix, exactly as you’d picture a cult leader out in the Mojave desert to look. Famke Janssen makes for a believable femme fatale, and we even get an appearance by Vincent Schiavelli, which is always a treat.

       Add on to the fact that, while the noir throwback is novel it doesn’t really move beyond those trappings. Yeah it’s got that creepiness and gore that Clive Barker is known for, but it does a lot of setup between Harry’s backstory and the nature of magic and reality in this world and just leaves a lot on the table. Going back to Hellraiser yet again, the core of that film was familiar, deals with the devil, demons and what not, but the way that Barker reinterpreted those concepts felt unique. Lord of Illusions by contrast tries to marry this by the book noir tropes, you'd think Barker had The Big Sleep by his nightstand while writing the screenplay, to some early 90s Vertigo edginess, and the whole thing ends up feeling dissonant. Not horrible, not unwatchable, just…off.

       Lord of Illusions gets the mild recommendation then. Of all the Clive Barker adaptations that I’ve covered, it's by far the tamest and the easiest to watch in polite company, which might be the most damning praise I could possibly give to a horror movie. If you liked In the Mouth of Madness then you’ll probably enjoy this well enough, but it’s definitely not as engaging as that film. If you liked Cool World though this film is way better, so be sure to set your expectations appropriately this holiday season.

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2022: Stand By Me (1986), directed by Rob Reiner

 

The Trailer

and

The Appropriate Tune: 'Stand By Me' by John Lennon

       It would’ve been pretty ironic if the year I decided to do an all adaptation edition of the Marathon that I just didn’t have Stephen King, huh? Hilarious even. Good thing we didn’t do it then, because this is a mature, adult-oriented blog dedicated to serious film criticism. No jokes should be made, not even unintentionally, or this noble art would be forever tainted. So yet another Stephen King adaptation, but rather than doing something obvious like Lawnmower Man or The Langoliers, how about we cover something a little more obscure?

       Released in 1986, Stand By Me was directed by Rob Reiner, written by Bruce A Evans and Raynold Gideon and produced by Evans, Gideon and Andrew Scheinman through Act III Productions, based on the 1982 novella “The Body” by Stephen King. Gordie Lachance brings us to the town of Castle Rock, Oregon in the year 1959, when he (as played by Wil Wheaton) was 12 years old, and he and his buddies Chris (River Phoenix), Teddy (Corey Feldman) and Verne (Jerry O’Connell) whiled away the summer days before the big move to junior high. One day Verne arrives at the treehouse and reveals that he had overheard two teenage tough talk about discovering a body in the woods a town or so over while stealing a car, likely that of Ray Brower, a local boy who had recently gone missing. This news excites the boys -- if they were able to locate the body and subsequently report it to the authorities, they’d be hailed as heroes! So that’s exactly what they decide to do, gathering their supplies and making the long journey to the corpse of Ray Brower. A literal journey, with all its trials and tribulations, and one of self-discovery, over the course of one crazy weekend in the summer of 59.

       While nowadays the American 1950’s is almost universally reviled as a period of bigotry, violence and sterile social conformity (which it was, to be fair), in the 1980s the shine had not quite left the rose. Films like American Graffiti and Grease and TV shows like Happy Days had not quite faded from the public consciousness yet, and bands like The Stray Cats were able to find success on the charts thanks to the rise of MTV and the thorough pilfering of the Atomic Age aesthetic. Given that, and the comedic bent to Rob Reiner’s creative work up to this point, a potential viewer might assume that this would also be a comedic nostalgia trip, a prototypical edition of The Sandlot. Although Gordie’s recollection of that time is ultimately positive however and there are definitely moments of humor, it is also made clear that this is in spite of the abuse that the boys go via their parents, other adults, and teenagers like Ace and his gang. They were ‘free’ in a Peter Pan esque way that many kids today couldn’t fathom, able to smoke cigarettes and carry guns and walk around unfettered by the need for supervision, but they did so under an atmosphere of ugly craziness that would become the standard in the 1970’s. Even the soundtrack, filled with the hits of the day by Buddy Holly and The Chordettes, seems almost Lynchian in the way it juxtaposes the saccharine ideal with the harsh reality. All of which would seem to place Stand By Me firmly in the latter category, but I think Stephen King manages to capture the human element that is often dismissed in recreations of the period.

       Stand By Me then is a coming-of-age story in two forms: the literal journey to Ray Brower’s corpse, overcoming the trials and tribulations set before them and so establishing their independence, and the emotional journey where they are forced to confront the trauma in their lives. Such a story requires a strong cast to do it justice and that’s precisely what Rob Reiner did, putting together a cast of kids that I don’t think I’ve ever seen matched in subsequent kids movies. All four leads put in great work here, you can see why they all went on to have some degree of success in Hollywood later on, but I have to give the nod to River Phoenix here. He hadn’t even hit puberty and yet he had such an impressive command of the tragic core of the character; Wise beyond his years, playing the role of best friend, surrogate brother and mentor all at once, but at the end of the day he’s still just a kid, and so those moments when he does show vulnerability, are all the more impactful because of it. So while Stand By Me is about Gordie dealing with the death of his brother, it’s about his relationship with Chris and how vital our bonds with our friends can be, especially when we’re young. 

       As far as directing goes, Stand By Me is simple but effective. Reiner isn’t reinventing the wheel here, but what he does is very direct and evocative, which is what a story like Stand By Me calls for, dealing as it does with memory and the perspective of children. I especially like the train scene: a dangerous set piece in any other film, but from the perspective of children seems downright apocalyptic.

       Stand By Me easily gets the recommendation. Stephen King built his career on horror and the supernatural, and although the macabre premise of ‘children looking for a corpse’ would seem to fit right into his wheelhouse, his exploration of guilt, abusive relationships and its impact on developing minds proved he was more than a genre writer. Similarly Rob Reiner would cement his position in the upper echelon of directors of the period, a streak that would last all the way up the mid 90’s, when North would finally derail his momentum. Kiefer Sutherland also proved he could play a good psycho, which certainly came in handy when he would play a psycho years later on TV. So definitely a film worth putting on this Halloween, but maybe don’t try and pull a double feature with The Goonies or Monster Squad, else the emotional whiplash might hurt something fierce.

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2022: The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939), directed by Sidney Lanfield

 

The Trailer

and

The Appropriate Tune: 'Hounds of Love' by Kate Bush

       Now that the obligations are out of the way, it’s now time to get into the gimmick of this year’s Marathon: Book Club Month! For the rest of the month, every film is going to be based on a written work, primarily short stories and novels but there’ll probably be adaptations of other forms of the written word popping up here and there. And what better way to kick things off than with one of the most famous literary figures in the whole of Western civilization?  Maybe if we had some whiskey and mozzarella sticks, but this ain’t a T.G.I. Friday’s buddy, this is blog country.

      Released in 1939, The Hound of the Baskervilles was directed by Sidney Lanfield, written by Ernest Pascal and produced by Gene Markey and Daryl F. Zanuck, based on the 1902 novel of the same name by Arthur Conan Doyle. The year is 1889. Sir Charles Baskerville has died, heart failure wouldn’t you know, and Henry Baskerville (Richard Greene) is set to inherit the Baskerville estate, located in the middle of Dartmoor in Devonshire. Trouble is, a lot of people believe that Charles’ death wasn’t simply heart failure, but a heart attack brought about by pure, unbridled fear. Fear of the Hound of the Baskervilles, a ghastly canine said to haunt the moors of Dartmoor, and to bring death to all who bear the Baskerville name. In order to ensure that doesn’t happen to Henry, close family friend Dr. Mortimer (Lionel Atwill) enlists the aid of that most famous of detectives, Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) and Dr. Watson (Nigel Bruce) to discover the truth of things. In this case however, the truth may turn out deadlier than fiction.

       As the out-and-out ‘spooky’ story of the Holmes canon one might expect the film version of Baskervilles to reflect that, and that is indeed the case. Whether it’s the damp streets of Victorian London or the barren, almost alien wastes of Dartmoor, wherein Baskerville Hall looms on the horizon cold and menacing, this is a world of gloom and mold wrapped in a fancy coat. That Fox was trying to replicate the Gothic horror atmosphere that Universal had utilized to great success is speculation but would hardly be surprising, and to their credit they pull off an impressive facsimile. I’ve looked at the entire list of Universal Monster Movies and for a second I still thought that the Holmes movies were part of them. Probably the gratuitous amount of Lionel Atwill, the man was the oregano of genre films.

       The golden years of Holmes’ life under the eye of Arthur Conan Doyle coincided with the birth of film as a medium for storytelling, and of those early men who portrayed the detective Basil Rathbone is above and away the most famous. Looking at him in this film, the slicked hair, the aquiline nose, he looks exactly as you’d imagine Holmes himself to be (and like how Sidney Paget drew him), and the way Rathbone carries himself you could believe he's the smartest guy in the room. Personally I think he’s written as too personable; Holmes to me, which essentially means as he was portrayed by Jeremy Brett, is best when written as an aloof and occasionally acerbic man who takes on cases out of curiosity more so than any moral compulsion. This Holmes by contrast is firmly entrenched in the hero role, and while I’m sure that was useful when they made Holmes into a franchise player, but personally I find him to be rather bland because of it. 

       This film was also one of the pushers of the ‘dumb Watson’ trope in the Sherlock pop culture consciousness, which is a pet peeve of mine. Of course one of the conceits of the series is that Watson is in awe of Holmes’ deductive powers, but it’s also the case that he was a capable medical practitioner and writer (the Holmes stories are written as if he’s transcribing them after all), a fact that doesn’t seem to gel with Nigel Bruce’s portrayal of the character as this bumbling buffoon. One of the sins of writing smart characters I’ve heard is writing the characters around them as idiots to make them seen more capable, and Watson is the most egregious example of this sin.

       Therein lies the major issue with this version Hound of the Baskervilles -- that the most interesting character of the movie, Holmes, is missing for a good chunk of it, leaving us to flounder with the Watson the Lesser and the rest of the cast, who are bog standard 30’s actor. Richard Greene is the kind of paint-by-numbers leading man types that were infesting the industry at the time, a Zeppo with less charisma, and his relationship with Beryl Stapleton is toothless at best. It’s fun to see Lionel Atwill and John Carradine much in the same way that nerds like picking out references in superhero movies, but they don’t contribute much. 

       I also have my doubts on how well it presents the mystery separate from the original story, although to be fair it’s been years since I’ve read it. We get some clues right at the beginning, then there’s the gulf where they try to make us care about Henry and Beryl, then the end where we just find out who the killer is and they wrap things up like they were having a celluloid shortage. We do have a ‘laying out the crime’ scene of a sort, but the film doesn’t lay out these clues for the audience, so when it’s revealed the reaction is ‘ooh…ok.’ Which is my reaction to this entire movie.

       The Hound of the Baskervilles does not get the recommendation. While the visuals were on point, as an adaptation I think the charm of Sherlock Holmes was lost in translation, and given the ubiquitous nature of Doyle’s character I can’t think of a reason to watch it unless you have a keen interest in the Rathbone Holmes movies. Just read the book, or if you have a phobia of fonts watch the adaptation of Baskervilles starring Jeremy Brett as Sherlock, that’s arguably the better option. Grab yourself a nice frothing syringe of cocaine and have a chill evening.

The Long Dar Marathon of the Soul 2022: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014), directed by Matt Reeves

The Trailer

 and

The Appropriate Tune: 'Guerilla Radio' by Rage Against the Machine

       The original Planet of the Apes was the little franchise that could. Your standard Twilight Zone plot hitched to a Charlton Heston vehicle with some (for its time) impressive costuming effects, mixing together into a cinematic gumbo that took the country by storm for a time. ‘Lighting in a bottle’ I’m sure was the common refrain, especially when Tim Burton’s attempt to reboot the franchise hit theaters like a wet turd thrown by an angry simian. Not as bad as the realization that I’ll probably have to cover it to keep the number of Star Trek and Apes films consistent in the Marathon, but still pretty bad.

       Ten years later however, the naysayers and poo-pooers were silenced with the release of Rise of the Planet of the Apes; A reinterpretation of the monkey movie which took a more hard sci-fi approach rather than the allegory of the original, and a film which succeeded largely on the back of Andy Serkis and the advances in CGI technology. Such success demands more success in Hollywoodland, and so three years later there came a sequel, the first sequel to an Apes film in 41 years. Is this a Wrath of Khan or more a Final Frontier? And how long until we see a banana on screen?

       Released in 2014, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was directed by Matt Reeves, written by Mark Bomback, Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver and produced by Peter Chernin, Dylan Clark, Jaffa and Silver through Chernin Entertainment and TSG Entertainment. It’s the near future, and civilization has collapsed thanks to that handy-dandy retrovirus that was cooked up in the last movie. Human civilization that is, as the ape society run by Caesar (Andy Serkis) is doing better than ever. Things are looking up, until the apes come across a party of humans led by Malcolm (Jason Clarke). Turns out there’s an entire colony of humans living in San Francisco (immune to the plague wouldn’t you know) and they’re itching to rebuild, preferably without learning any sort of lesson. To do that they need electricity to potentially contact other colonies, and the only way to get that is via a hydroelectric dam right in the middle of Ape country. Thus begins a tense tete-a-tete, as Malcolm tries to build a working relationship with Caesar. As there are humans mistrustful of ape however, like Dreyfus (Gary Oldman), there are apes distrustful of human, like Koba (Toby Kebbell), and it seems that peace between the species is teetering on a razor’s edge. Just about anything could set this powder keg off, so who’s gonna be the one to light the match?

       Rise gave us a chunk of ape action by the end, but Dawn kicks it into overdrive. Talking apes, apes riding horses, talking apes riding horses and wielding guns, we’re finally into Planet of the Apes territory proper. Not only that, but apes get the most screen time, the action set pieces, even the most dialogue if you count sign language and hooting as dialogue. If you thought the human characters in Rise ended up being overshadowed by the apes, that’s nothing compared to the bare bones arcs and characterization of the humans here. I mean this film has Gary Oldman in it, who is not the lead for whatever reason, and I had to check wikipedia to remember his name, And the name of the female lead. And Malcolm’s son. Did they even say their names in the movie more than once? Christ…

       Then again the only apes that are named in the film are Caesar and Koba, and I didn’t even know one of the apes was supposed to be his son until the last half hour or so, so they aren’t the only neglected primates in this movie. Really this movie revolves entirely around Caesar; His arc, a more melodramatic and better looking version of his arc from the original films, is the one that dictates the entire course of the film, and pretty much none of the characters aside from Koba seem capable of accomplishing anything without him. I mean Serkis puts on the best performance of the film again so you can hardly blame them for putting the focus on Caesar, but at the same time I found it very hard to maintain interest in inter-ape politics, especially when most of them don’t talk. Didn’t matter much in Rise when they were still mostly just apes, and it didn’t matter much in the original film where the Apes were mostly just humans, but Dawn is in the unfortunate middle ground where the whole idea starts feeling really dumb.

       Which isn’t a jab at the CGI work by the way, because Dawn goes above and beyond the call of duty (and probably the budget) getting these damn dirty apes on screen, and I think the effort bore fruit. Some look better than others of course, looking at you Caesar’s kids, but the emotional depth they can convey with these ape models more than makes up for any unnatural lighting. The scene where Koba’s army engages the colony in particular, the most memorable scene in the movie to me, is like something out of Saving Private Ryan; The apocalyptic carnage and mayhem just wouldn’t have been possible using the old Ape masks.

       Ultimately though Dawn is in an unenviable position. It’s not a bad movie per se, the FX are obviously good, the action set pieces are good, but even though Rise and Dawn share similar problems Rise felt like a much more compelling film. Honestly I found it hard to even think of anything to talk about, which probably comes through in the review. I believe imdb has it around the 7, 7.5, and yeah, that sounds about right. A mild recommendation, and maybe next year we’ll see how it sets up for the grand finale.